Slate takes on the NYT's wacko page-one story about the Clinton marriage

[DeepModem Mom]

Slate: The Bill and Hillary Code
What's the New York Times trying to tell us?
By Jack Shafer
Posted Tuesday, May 23, 2006


(Slate)
Bill and Hillary Clinton

When the New York Times prints a news story in its own private code, as it did with (a May 23) Page One article "Clintons Balance Married and Public Lives," veteran readers grope through it, sentence by sentence, in hopes of piecing together the article's true meaning....

***

The story states that the "state of their marriage" is "Topic A" for "many prominent Democrats" without ever saying how or why it ranks so high. And who are the many prominent Democrats? If they are many, why aren't they represented in the piece? Or do Healy and his editors count "one, two, three, many" when enumerating their subjects?

Healy could directly ask, "Is Bill cheating?" Instead, he writes a donut around the subject. As the piece spirals out to 2,000 words, the donut grows into a 20-inch Michelin radial, and the radial becomes a NASCAR oval. The experienced reader finds himself searching the infield of this great expanse for what appear to be clues....

***

Take, for example, the newspaper's time-motion study of the Clintons' overlapping schedules....What's this supposed to mean? Assuming these numbers are right, the Clintons spend more time together—almost half of each month—than most political couples who keep homes in Washington and their districts. But rather than make that obvious point, the article goes on to cite anonymous Clinton friends—"eager to smooth any rough edges on the relationship"—who want the Times to know about the dinners, the board games, and the gardening duties the Clintons share. The journalistic effect is spotting smoke—alerting readers to the fact that something's slightly amiss with the Clintons—but then not looking for fire. Or, does Healy want his readers to know that he—and the Clinton's "friends"—are protesting too much?...

***

Intrigue feeds on intrigue when the article highlights Bill's relative absence from events that showcase Hillary and asserts that she wants to position herself as her "own person," owing to her presidential ambitions. But why make any fuss about Bill not being at Hillary's side? Few members of Congress appear in public with their spouses, except during campaigns, and even then many campaign alone. Unless, of course, the Times intends a secret message with this piece: They spend lots of time together, he keeps a tactful distance from her career by mutual agreement, and he cheats....

http://www.slate.com/id/2142255/

Link to the NYT story, "For Clintons, Delicate Dance of Married and Public Lives":

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/nyregion/23clintons.html?ex=1306036800&en=9145b83969d6cfb4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[rodeodance]

1. above the fold front page. Silly-trying to tell us their marriage is of in

terest to us.

[robbedvoter]

2. "Position herself as her own person? She's a frigging US Senator!

I may not vote for her in the primaries - although a few more NYT Enquirer articles like that and that might change too!

[sandnsea]

3. The code?? Pssst... don't forget..

if Hillary gets in the White House it's going to be 8 more years of blowjobs.

I don't know who pressured the Times into writing this stupid story, but there's absolutely no doubt as to the reason why.

[MJGurl]

4. 8 more years of blowjobs?

That should get the male vote!

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Hi, MJGurl -- welcome to DU!

[robbedvoter]

6. he!he! Only if the vote is secret!